The health emergency highlighted that food comes from peasant production and not from foreign trade.
Francisco Hidalgo Flor [1] and Sergio Borja Vivero [2]
The discourse of hegemonic globalization from the late 90s to the present has sought to impose the view that addressing food insecurity was subordinate to trade agreements between peripheral and core countries. Under the pretext of leveraging the supposed comparative advantages of each side, the discourse simultaneously denigrated approaches that prioritized domestic food production and peasant and family farming. Even global multilateral organizations strongly opposed including the concept of food sovereignty in their official declarations.
However, the phenomenon of the health crisis, with the declaration of a pandemic in mid-March 2020, led to a six-month period in which most countries declared a state of emergency or exception, which included levels of confinement.
This created a situation that affects not only the health crisis but also has repercussions on multiple levels. As a global event that disrupted the apparent normality of the global status quo , it brought to light serious issues and called into question the very foundations of globalization.
One of those significant impacts is related to food and agriculture.
Given this exceptional situation, it is worth asking: What happened in each country regarding the supply of food, especially agricultural and livestock products, during this phase? We analyze the Ecuadorian case.
In Ecuador, the state of emergency, under the control of the national government, began on March 11 and, according to constitutional norms, has a non-extendable time limit that ends on September 13. During that period, official data acknowledges 119.000 infected people and records 11.000 deaths [3] , although other sources indicate that the number of deaths above the average exceeds 30.000.
The health situation in Ecuador is not resolved. In some regions, such as the city of Guayaquil, which was initially the epicenter of a rapid spread, authorities report a controlled situation, with 13.500 cases reported; but in the capital, Quito, now the epicenter, the situation is one of a constant increase in cases, with 26.500 cases, although with a lower mortality rate.
The vulnerability of life in large cities was demonstrated, where modern evolution condemns the popular sectors to overcrowded spaces, in conditions of unemployment and despair, becoming easy prey for contagion.
At the same time, it compels us to recognize social and economic priorities, beyond monetary profitability, as well as demanding the recovery of comprehensive visions and perspectives on humanity and its articulation with nature, overcoming the narrowness of markets.
It compels us to understand food as intrinsically linked to the life and health of all human beings, including the importance of fresh, healthy, agriculturally grown foods. These foods are capable of nourishing the entire population of a territory with the least possible environmental impact.
It calls for revaluing the human groups dedicated and trained in food cultivation, as well as livestock and fishing activities, production systems located within the territories, and in conditions to implement models that guarantee their nutritional quality, as well as providing sources of employment at the local level and stopping the migration from the countryside to the city.
The different moments of the state of emergency
In the evolution of the state of emergency, it is possible to distinguish two moments, where the food situation also had different impacts.
The first phase was the nationwide lockdown, isolating the country from the world. This began with the official detection of the first cases and coincided with the global pandemic declaration in mid-March, extending into early June. During this period, strict restrictions were imposed on movement within the country and on international travel. The productive sector contracted, and the primary-export capitalist system was severely impacted.
Regarding the proposed approach, this first phase places the link between health and food at the center of public attention as a matter of public concern, not just an individual one, since the lives of the population are at stake, especially those sectors identified as most vulnerable. It focuses on the capacity for territorial and national food production and supply, given the reduction in global food trade.
A second phase of the state of emergency is the easing of lockdown measures, both internally and in relation to the rest of the country. This lasted from June to mid-September, during which regions were identified with varying rates of infection and mortality, and different processes were implemented for reopening to mobility and workplaces. In this phase, economic pressures increasingly influenced adherence to public health recommendations, as the primary-export capitalist system regained its momentum.
Regarding the approach taken in this second phase, attention to the issue of health and food remains, but economic perspectives that prioritize international markets over national and local marketing and production are regaining ground.
At the same time, it is worth briefly digressing to indicate the social and political process in which this state of emergency is embedded, since we must not lose sight of the fact that the Ecuadorian ruling elites, involved in a process of neoliberal return and the imposition of a conservative culture, are finding ways to impose, within the framework of the state of exception, through the large private media outlets, a public opinion clouded by the media dissemination of corruption cases in public purchases of medicines in hospitals, while at the same time blocking the possibilities for an open social and political discussion regarding the deep conditions of the crisis and promoting a debate that recovers broad visions and understandings about the changes required to protect and guarantee the life of the entire population, with horizons different from the recovery of the dynamics of the primary-export capitalist machine.
Given the topic we have set ourselves, the dynamics of food and agriculture during the state of emergency, and the impact that foreign trade has on the Ecuadorian economy, it seems crucial to ask ourselves about what happened to agricultural and food foreign trade during the first phase of the state of emergency, in the context of global trade restrictions.
Evolution of agricultural exports and imports during the national emergency
During the period of total lockdown and later in the stage of gradual deconfinement, ports and cargo areas of international airports restricted their dynamics, altering the rhythms of economic import and export activities.
It should also be noted that imports of agricultural and livestock products represent a relatively small share of the country's total imports; they accounted for 3.99% of the total value of imports between January and May 2020, while last year, during the same period, they constituted 2.64%. Therefore, it is clear that there was a slight increase in the share of agricultural and livestock imports during this part of the year.
To visualize what the amount of agricultural and livestock imports means, it can be cited, by way of comparison, that between January and May 2020 imports of automobiles, light trucks, motorcycles and spare parts for these vehicles approached 197 million dollars [4] , while those of cereals reached around 153 million.
It is noteworthy that imports of agricultural and livestock products during the period January-May 2020, compared to the same period of the previous year, increased in both value and volume; in FOB value they rose by 15.04%, while in volume they increased by 29.68%. These figures are even more significant considering that the total value of Ecuador's imports during the analyzed period was 23.82% lower than imports during the same period in 2019.
An analysis of agricultural and livestock imports on a month-by-month basis reveals no clear trend. In April 2020, imports were 41.59% lower in volume and 29.23% lower in value than in March. In May, compared to April, import volume increased by 8.59% and value by 9.97%, but remained lower than in March. In other words, a general decline in agricultural and livestock imports can be observed during April and May. Furthermore, when compared to February, the last month before the pandemic in Ecuador, the volume of agricultural and livestock products imported that month was lower than the amount purchased by the country from abroad during the months of lockdown [5].
Looking at what happened with the different product groups, a uniform trend is also not observed: while the value of cereal imports declined during April and May, purchases from abroad of fruits, seeds, coffee, tea, yerba mate and spices, dairy products and eggs fell in April, but increased in May. Imports of vegetables and tubers rose in April, but fell in May; and those of meat and baby chickens [6] increased in April and decreased in May.
Regarding the prices of agricultural and livestock products that Ecuador has imported through May of this year, they generally decreased compared to last year. The three main groups of imported agricultural products—cereals, fruits, and vegetables and tubers—saw price declines of 10.62%, 1.35%, and 0.44%, respectively, compared to last year.
However, when analyzing the average import prices per metric ton of cereals during the months of total or partial lockdown, it is observed that they were USD 215.56 in March, USD 264.17 in April, and USD 232.33 in May; in other words, the prices in April and May were lower than those in March. Let's look at Graph No. 1.
Chart No. 1: Agricultural and livestock imports March – May 2020
Regarding exports of agricultural, aquaculture, and forestry products for the period January-May 2020, compared to the same period last year, there was an increase of 13.20%; and their share within the total universe of exports rose from 42.99% in 2019 to 57.02% in 2020. In other words, the group of export products being analyzed were the main generators of foreign exchange, surpassing oil exports.
The sum of banana and shrimp exports, the two main agricultural and aquaculture export products, reached USD 3,343,620,340, a value that was higher than that of crude oil exports which reached USD 3,306,037,000.
If we dig a little deeper, we can see that during the months of March, April, and May of 2020, the total value of exports fell by 7.33%, 16.83%, and 4.26%, respectively, compared to the exports of the month of February; that is, the lockdowns, quarantines, and economic stagnation in the countries that buy Ecuadorian products affected external sales.
However, not all export products experienced this downward trend; shrimp sales, on the contrary, increased in April and May.
In May 2020, exports of most products were higher than in April; however, banana and coffee exports decreased compared to April. See Graph No. 2.
Chart No. 2: Agricultural and Aquaculture Exports March – May 2020
Relevance of peasant food production
The state of emergency due to the health crisis caused by the spread of Covid-19, in effect between March and September 2020, showed that the provision of food for the entire Ecuadorian population is based on national production and does not depend on foreign trade.
It is possible to demonstrate with precision that, faced with a scenario like the one presented in the first phase of the emergency, with restrictions on international agricultural trade, the country has a national productive base for food self-sufficiency, especially in agriculture and livestock.
However, this national agricultural and food production base has a substantial component that comes from peasant and family farming, although it is not the only one.
To demonstrate this point, we will examine the situation surrounding so-called short-cycle crops and the size of the production units, which make up a significant portion of the national diet. See Graph No. 3.
Chart No. 3: Temporary crops and participation of production units [7].
Focusing solely on temporary crops, we can identify at least 505.000 peasant and family production units, assuming land access as the criterion, ranging from less than 1 to 10 hectares, with a total cultivated area of 511.600 hectares. Medium-sized production units, ranging from 10 to 50 hectares, number 96.000, with a cultivated area of 405.000 hectares.
This means that small and medium-sized production units, focused on temporary crops, which largely involve family production models, represent 74% of the cultivated area and 95% of the production units, and represent a substantial potential for food production for the country as a whole.
Of course, a segment of agricultural production for feeding the Ecuadorian population is owned by agribusinesses, but it is not the predominant sector, representing 26% of the cultivated land and 5% of the production units. The majority of agribusiness capital is concentrated in agricultural exports.
A potential built from below in a long historical process that has as milestones the access to land opened by the agrarian reforms of 1964 and 1973, the implementation of rural development programs, intercultural education and peasant social security in the 80s and 90s, the recognition of rights after the indigenous uprisings of 1990 and 2001, the peasant and indigenous proposals within the constituent process of 2007 and 2008, the resistance to extractivism since 2012.
Within this evolution of the consolidation of peasant agriculture, we must place the struggles of 2004 and 2005 against the signing of the free trade agreement with the United States, which achieved the breakdown of the negotiation, which has been maintained to this day, that is, for more than fifteen years, which, together with a few measures of protection for the local production of dairy and rice, are a key element.
It has been a journey against the current of the strategies of agribusiness allied with public powers, whether neoliberal or developmental.
Regain food sovereignty and block the trade agreement with the United States
The evidence of the key role of peasant and family farms in providing food for communities and nations, especially given the prospect of future pandemics similar to the one experienced in 2020, should lead states to implement or consolidate strategies to strengthen these local agricultural systems. There is still a long way to go if the implementation of production models geared towards organic and/or agroecological agriculture is prioritized, fostering diverse experiences.
Even more so in countries like Ecuador, which managed to resist the onslaught of trade agreements in the early 2000s, and also has a Constitution that assumes food sovereignty as a state strategy.
But the serious risk is that with the so-called "return to the new normal" all the learning achieved will be forgotten and pressures from local agricultural export sectors and large transnational corporations will be reactivated to resume the agenda towards a trade agreement with the United States of America and with the member countries of the Pacific Alliance.
[1] Sociologist, professor of Agrarian Sociology at the Central University of Ecuador, researcher at Sipae. Member of the CLACSO Working Group on Critical Studies of Rural Development.
[2] Technician in tariff nomenclature, studied Foreign Trade at the Equinoccial Technological University, and Logistics and International Trade at ENAE in Murcia, Spain. Paper presented at the Third Seminar “Land, Territories and Food Sovereignty” held virtually in Quito, from August 26 to 28, 2020.
[3] Search: https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2020/09/13/nota/7976473/coronavirus-ecuador-salud-estadistica-13-septiembre-ministerio
[4] All the figures mentioned are sourced from the statistics of the Central Bank of Ecuador.
[5] NOTES ON STATISTICAL DATA COLLECTION: Obtaining the data presented in this article required a search of the statistics held by the Central Bank of Ecuador. This involved gathering import information by chapter of the tariff nomenclature and selecting the chapters relevant to agricultural and livestock products. In some cases, the research had to delve into the subheadings of a chapter to exclude products not relevant to this study. For example, Chapter 1 contained information on breeding swine and chicks, but also on breeding horses; the latter was not included in this article. Searching by tariff heading was also necessary to obtain information on some export products that do not usually appear in the Central Bank's monthly statistical reports, such as rice, other fruits, vegetables, and tubers (SBV).
[6] Baby chickens are imported one day after hatching and are raised in poultry farms for meat production.
[7] Source: Espac 2017 / Prepared by: Francisco Hidalgo and Eliana Anangonó.
If you would like to receive more information about CLACSO's training programs:
[widget id=”custom_html-57″]
to our email lists.
